Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[SezMe]

What you tube video? At any rate, I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I think most people would agree with me.

I think you're horribly wrong. Most people i know are not blood thirsty as you seem to be.

 

[SezMe]

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.

Could you give an example of a gun "specifically designed" to kill humans? In general, how would differentiate between such a gun and a gun designed simply to kill whatever it is aim at?

 

[linusrichard]

What are the laws for treason?

Funny you should ask. Treason against the United States is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Would you be willing to accept the Constitution as authority for this question?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Does this not equate to that? Bombing and killing citizens for some political ideology that you embraced against a country you grew up in and took advantage of?

Perhaps it's debatable, but to me it sounds like, no, this is not treason.

Sounds like treason to me,

Are you working from the constitutional definition, or your own sense?

this guy is an enemy combatant if ever there was one.

No. I mean, maybe he's an enemy combatant (I say no), but he's certainly not "an enemy combatant if ever there was one." Here are some things you would normally expect to find in an enemy combatant:
- A foreigner.
- Bearing arms in the service of his country.
- A state of war exists between his country and the United States.
- Wearing the uniform of his country's military.
- Attacking US military targets.
- Fighting in the theater of war.

I'm not saying that an enemy combatant has to have all these characteristics, but to take someone like Tsarnaev, who has none of these characteristics, and say he's "an enemy combatant if ever there was one" can't be right.

Also -- if you think he's guilty of treason, you should be aware that the Constitution puts special procedural rules on treason trials:

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution could have just said "confession" if the founders thought a confession to police was enough, but instead they said "Confession in open Court," which I think has to mean something, right?

 

[Nessie]

A trial does not just establish guilt. It decides on the sentence, establishes sanity and it shows the USA abides by the rule of law. A guilty plea probably means a much smaller trial, but some for of trial is still required.

 

[I Am The Scum]

That would have to be decided based on what is the most efficient means to an end in this specific situation. I don't feel this way if the person denies culpability, they deserve a trial if the evidence needs to be examined. What do you need to examine here in order to establish guilt that he is has admitted to already?

You are not answering the question. Who gets to decide?

 

[angrysoba]

This doesn't really deserve a response, it's not contributing to the conversation and amounts to trolling. I hope you feel better now.

You say that my post doesn't deserve a response and that I must be trolling, yet look at what you said:

The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

So what parts of "our way of life" do you endorse? Not the US Constitution, obviously.

Your comment might be a joke, mine's not. At this point I don't see a reason to waste state or federal dollars on this guy, just put him in a row boat out in the middle of the Pacific, if he survives, it was Allah's will.

The man is guilty by his own admission, just exactly what process is going to make a difference in the outcome for this guy or the victims?

String them all up or tie them to a horse, slap it's butt, and let it charge over the border to Mexico. I don't really care who they are but if they commit mass murder for political reasons they need to get out of the country or be hung. The miscreants can express themselves just fine with out harming the public.

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.

Yes, but he confessed, big difference.

According to whom is it a big difference? You?

 

[Courier]

There is no good nor logical reason to try him anywhere but in the USA in civilian court.

 

[varwoche]

Jodie -- I'm confident that the anti constitutional, anti human rights stance that you advocate would be far more harmful to the USA in the long run than the violent acts themselves.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sounds like treason to me, this guy is an enemy combatant if ever there was one.

You're confusing some very different things.

Treason is a crime. If you're accused of a crime, you get the rights of the accused.

Being an enemy combatant is not a crime. If you're captured as an enemy combatant, you're subject to the rules of the Third Geneva Convention on the handling and treatment of prisoners of war.

Being an illegal enemy combatant is a confusing term that describes someone accused of a crime. Again, if someone is accused of a crime, they're entitled to all the rights of the accused.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.

So, you don't like the 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendments. Do you support the rights of all to be free? Hummmm..........

 

[triforcharity]

What you tube video? At any rate, I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I think most people would agree with me.

I'm willing to bet that most people that post on this forum disagree with every single thing you've written. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% of the people that reside in the USA disagree with you. I know that nobody in my immediate family does.

 

[Courier]

What are the laws for treason? Does this not equate to that? Bombing and killing citizens for some political ideology that you embraced against a country you grew up in and took advantage of? Sounds like treason to me, this guy is an enemy combatant if ever there was one.

He hasn't been convicted yet.

How would you feel if one of your friends or relatives was mistakenly accused of being a traitor? Would you be cool with him losing his Constitutional Rights?

 

[Virus]

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.

Do you live in a dangerous area?

 

[Courier]

I don't think any citizen should own a gun that is specifically designed to kill humans. That should not be a right.

Thank God the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

I like my guns very much.

 

[G6000]

Every American citizen is protected by their Constitutional rights when they are accused of murder.

Unless they are a Muslim. It's right there in the First Amendment. Look for yourself. Don't ask me to go and get the evidence for my claim.

 

[Babbylonian]

Jodie -- I'm confident that the anti constitutional, anti human rights stance that you advocate would be far more harmful to the USA in the long run than the violent acts themselves.

Oh come on. The way some of you bleeding hearts talk, you'd think the United States of America wouldn't exist without its laws.

Protip for Jodie: It really wouldn't.

 

[Courier]

Every American citizen is protected by their Constitutional rights when they are accused of murder.

Unless they are a Muslim. It's right there in the First Amendment. Look for yourself. Don't ask me to go and get the evidence for my claim.

Correction: Every legal resident of the USA is protected by the Constitution, be they citizen, Permanent Resident, Visa student, or tourist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correction: Every legal resident of the USA is protected by the Constitution, be they citizen, Permanent Resident, Visa student, or tourist.

Indeed. When the Constitution means "citizens" it uses that word. When it means "persons" or "people" or "accused" it uses those words.

I think it's easier to understand many of these rights simply as limitations on the authority of the government rather than something that only pertains to a class of people. I think the Boumediene v. Bush decision used that approach, at least to some extent.

It'd be silly to think that it'd be OK for Congress to establish a religion even for foreigners who've never set foot in the U.S. (say--detainees at Guantanamo, for example).

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm willing to bet that most people that post on this forum disagree with every single thing you've written. I'm also willing to bet that 99.9% of the people that reside in the USA disagree with you. I know that nobody in my immediate family does.

Jodie is really just here to unite all of us in at least one thread. We can all sit back and agree for once and I think it is kinda nice, for a change.

OT/ good to see you back

 

[varwoche]

Jodie is really just here to unite all of us in at least one thread. We can all sit back and agree for once and I think it is kinda nice, for a change.

Yes, I refer to this as the human peace pipe effect.